I've been holding off commenting on this question because I only have part of the needed data...but I do have the Ketland export licenses so I have a good Idea how many rifles they shipped, where they shipped them and when. What I don't have yet is who they shipped them to and I can't get that information until I can get back into the National Archives...
Joe, I'm very much looking forward to your book. It's unfortunate that your research has been shut down.
The Ketland export data is very intriguing. It would be very interesting to know if any of these exported Ketland rifles were sent to Montreal. Those would have certainly been destined for the fur trade in the Great Lakes Region.
Rifles marked "Ketland & Co." could have been coming into Montreal as early as 1785 and all the way up through 1800. They would have probably looked like this:
Nearly all the surviving rifles of this type (Shumway's Type B) have locks marked "Ketland & Co." engraved in script.
They also have the "daisy" brass patch box.
...In fact, the K export licenses are fairly specific and make almost no mention of "Indian Trade" guns. I think they were simply made to be sold in America, quite in keeping with the Ketland & Walker business which was to sell anything they could make a profit on...
Ketland & Walker did supply some guns to the British government for distribution to Canadian Indians during the War of 1812 but these were not rifles...
Probably in the 1790s but certainly by the early 1800s, the pattern for the English made trade rifle changed to what Shumway called the Type D. This is the pattern that KETLAND, WALKER & Co were making for the 1813 Contract.
They looked like this:
The British government purchased 1,538 of these later rifles made by 16 different British firms, including KETLAND, WALKER & Co and the other firm KETLAND & ALLPORT, during the War of 1812 for their Indian allies. Some of these went through Monteal to the Great Lakes Region while others went to southern Indians via Western Florida and Mobile Bay.
...I don't think DeWitt has much to say about these later export rifles - his book is about British military rifles which these aren't. He did contribute to the published record of the Trade Gun Conference - (I forget the date but have it in my files). In that report Shumway attributes the K examples to the Indian trade. I have serious reservations about that. There is absolutely no documentary evidence and, in discussing it with DeWitt, he acknowledged that was just a guess and he has reservations as well...
Dave Person (smart dog) already addressed this point partially. De Witt Bailey actually included two chapters on Indian Rifles--one up to 1783 (the Wilson trade rifles) and a second chapter that covered from 1783 to 1840 (the 1813 Contracts). There is no question that these were intended for Indian allies as the same 1813 contracts with the 16 different firms included 12,494 Northwest trade guns, 10,118 Chief's trade guns, 2,636 trade pistols, as well as the 1,538 trade rifles.
De Witt Bailey's research only looked at guns and rifles purchased by the Board of Ordnance. He did not research the records of the Board of Trade (if they exist). The Board of Ordnance was responsible for purchasing Indian guns during the years of war (F&I, Rev., and 1812). We know from surviving letters from Colonial authorities that in between these periods the Board of Trade was ordering guns for Indians. Bailey doesn't cover any of these orders.
Outside the Hudson's Bay Company records, we don't know much about what private companies were having made in England and importing into North America. Not much has survived of the North West Company records for instance or the other Montreal based fur companies.
Why Would the British Copy Pennsylvania Rifles?Even before the F&I War, traders from Pennsylvania were crossing over the mountains and trading with Indians in Ohio country. One of the better known was George Croghan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Croghan. Mercantile firms such as Baynton, Wharton & Morgan of Philadelphia
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/baynton-wharton-and-morgan and Joseph Simon of Lancaster, PA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Simon_(1712%E2%80%931804) were active in trading in the Ohio country after the F&I War.
These Pennsylvania traders and trading companies likely introduced the Pennsylvania longrifle to the Indians in Ohio country at some time. Another avenue for Indians in Ohio to become familiar with Pennsylvania rifles was through Delaware and Shawnee Indians that had relocated from Pennsylvania to Ohio country before and after the F&I War.
These independent Pennsylvania traders had been competition to the French traders in the Ohio country prior to the F&I War and likely continued to be an aggravation to the Montreal based British traders after. It is possible that the British merchants in Montreal are the ones that started having Kentucky rifles made in England to compete with these Pennsylvania traders who were invading "their territory". On the other hand, it could have easily been New York or Philadelphia merchants that were looking for a cheaper source of rifle, than Lancaster made rifles, that initiated the English made Kentucky rifle.
Whoever initiated them, the market for them was undoubtedly the Ohio country. From Board of Ordnance records, De Witt Bailey listed a dozen rifles shipped from London to Quebec in 1778. Regular shipments were made each year after that--320 in 1779, 400 in 1780, 300 in 1781, and 250 in 1782.
Bailey found far fewer rifles shipped to the South. Compare the above numbers to only 65 rifles being shipped from London to Pensacola in 1778 and 30 rifles in 1779.
From about 1756 until after the Rev. War, Richard Wilson and later his son, William, was the sole contractor to the British government for Indian guns. We have surviving English pattern trade rifles of Types A, B, and C by Barnett, Ketland, Grice, and Wheeler. Bailey considered the possibility that Grice might have been a subcontractor to Wilson for government contracts, but also acknowledged that Grice may have made rifles for the private market. Barnett, Wheeler, and Ketland are also likely to have made their rifles for the private market. Barnett is known to have made trade guns for the North West Company and Ketland made trade guns for either NWC or another Montreal based fur company (they have the "circle fox" stamped on the lock and sometimes the barrel). So again, it would be interesting to know if any of the Ketland & Co. marked rifles were shipped to Canada.
I have a question concerning another type of rifle made by Ketland & Co. Jim Gordon has this rifle in his collection that he identified and a trade rifle.
Studying it, it had some military characteristics to me such as the belled upper ramrod thimble. The comb is much more pronounce that the other Ketland trade rifles, too.
Then I got a copy of De Witt Bailey's book and saw this illustration on page 95. The middle and bottom rifle are described as copies of the Norwegian Model 1791 cavalry carbine. The middle rifle has a lock plate marked "Ketland & Co." in script. Even though there are some slight differences between the rifle in Bailey's book and the one in Gordon's collection, they appear to be the same pattern.
Bailey doesn't discuss the Ketland cavalry carbine in the body of the text--just the picture caption.
Joe, I was wondering if you came across any information on this Ketland cavalry carbine and a possible date of manufacture for it?
